It's an image of Donald Duck telling mickey that whatever is meaningless since everything us know and also love can be reducible come chemicals.

You are watching: Will you fight or will you perish like a dog

Mickey responds by speak "Hypocrite the you are, because that you trust the chemistry in your mind to tell you the they space chemicals. All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove"

Which philosophers try to refute expertise by suggesting that we can never in reality trust what we recognize (doesn't have to be around "chemicals"). I know Descartes starts like this in his meditations. I guess Nietzsche likewise does in part form, perhaps in On Truth and also Lies in a Non-Moral Sense.

Who else? Any great readings you can recommend?

EDIT: Also, what do you think that the argument? I know Mickey isn't to be taken also seriously, yet whatever


6 comments
share
save
hide
report
95% Upvoted
This object is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes can not be cast
Sort by: best


*

level 1
· 3y · edited 3y
ancient Greek phil., phil. The science, Wittgenstein
The "Will you fight? Or will certainly you perish prefer a dog?" resembles, at the very least in attitude, Nietzsche or Camus in solution to the death of God or the Absurd, respectively.

I don't think "All understanding is ultimately based on that which us cannot prove" is much of a substantive statement. Also if one to be a hardcore foundationalist about knowledge, it'd be strange come expect whatever foundational premises to it is in provable. Provability is to show the truth of a proposition through other, an ext basic knowledge, but foundational premises space the most an easy knowledge by being foundational. The explain "All knowledge is ultimately based upon that which us cannot prove," I'd say, is just a truism worded to sound profound.


15
Share
ReportSave
level 2
· 3y · edited 3y
Critical Theory, Kant, Early modern Phil.

Will you fight? Or will certainly you perish like a dog?

Is part of the picture format


3
Share
ReportSave
level 2
· 2y

I understand Camus most likely wouldn’t, but would Nietzsche think that superseding the heat fatality of the cosmos is a worthwhile ultimate undertaking if we might prove it was possible by finish self awareness of all living things? This is type of exactly how I’ve began to analyze his “Will come Power.”


1
Share
ReportSave
level 1
· 3y · edited 3y

Plato faces this in his Cratylus in relation to knowledge/names (words), ns mean, the opportunity to know something with its name, the is, the manifestation of the essence of the thing through naming.

I hope someone defines it better, my english the is not an excellent enough

Edit: Names are conceived together imitations, with letters and syllables, that the significance of the point itself. Just imitations, prefer a paiting imitates the thing it represents yet it’s no the point itself.


4
Share
ReportSave
level 1
Comment eliminated by moderator · 3y
level 2
Mod
*
· 3y

Please bear in mind ours commenting rules:

All answers have to be informed and aimed at help the OP and other readers reach an knowledge of the issues at hand. Answers have to portray specific picture that the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers have to be fairly substantive.

This action was triggered by a person moderator. Please do not reply to this message, together this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.

See more: Can Metformin Be Cut In Half ? Metformin Almost Killed Me Yesterday


0
Share
ReportSave
*

r/askphilosophy
/r/askphilosophy aims to carry out serious, well-researched answer to thoughtful questions.
194k

Members


351

Online


Created Feb 21, 2011
Join
*
*
*
*

*

Top write-ups march 8 hours 2019Top articles of march, 2019Top short articles 2019
helpderekwadsworth.com coinsderekwadsworth.com premiumderekwadsworth.com gifts
aboutcareerspressadvertiseblogTermsContent policyPrivacy policyMod policy
Back come Top